Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
regintel-mcp

regintel-mcp

by Black-Swan-Causal-Labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_docket

Retrieves FDA docket metadata and total public comment counts for a specified docket ID, with optional refresh of cached data.

Instructions

Docket metadata plus the total number of public comments (e.g. 'FDA-2020-D-2307').

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "docket_id": "<docket_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_docket"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refreshNo
docket_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it: it says nothing about caching, freshness, permissions, or failure modes when a docket ID is unknown. Most notably, the meaning and side effects of the 'refresh' flag are never disclosed anywhere.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the return content. It reads as a noun phrase rather than a statement of action, which slightly weakens clarity but wastes no words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral detail, and it omits the one non-obvious input ('refresh') as well as return shape and error behavior. For a lookup tool with a cache-control parameter, this is not sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does help with 'docket_id' by giving the 'FDA-2020-D-2307' format example, but 'refresh' is completely unexplained, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The fragment 'Docket metadata plus the total number of public comments' does state the resource and the key returned fields, and the example ID clarifies what a docket looks like. But there is no verb and no differentiation from the sibling 'search_dockets', so an agent must infer that this is a single-docket lookup rather than a search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to call this instead of 'search_dockets', 'list_documents', or 'get_comment', nor any stated preconditions. The agent is left to infer the single-item-vs-search distinction entirely from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools